Saturday, February 02, 2008

Here we go with another cut and paste job. You folks might notice that I have been doing a lot of that lately.

Blame it on blogger and their spell check not working, because I am damn near dyslexic, adn I htae to psot without spell check. I am seriously thinking about dropping blogger even though they have promised to have this little problem fixed really soon.

But I am thankful for my fam. who send me print worthy shit on a daily basis. Like Prince and his songs, I could fill a vault with this shit.

The following story is from Reikki who e-mailed it to me.

It's for you Obamaholics, just so you can see what some folks out there are saying about your boy.

Riekki says it's from a site that links to David Duke, so take it for what it's worth.

The author is some guy named H. Millard, and the title of his little hit piece is called "IS BARACK OBAMA AN UPDATE OF MALCOLM X?" (And he doesn't mean that in a good way, trust me)

So here goes:

"When I saw Barack Obama giving his victory speech Saturday night after winning the South Carolina Democrat primary, I was struck by how much he looks like and talks like Malcolm X.Put black framed glasses on Barack and this guy could play Malcolm X in a movie.Even though Obama appears to be trying to broaden his support to people of all races and ethnicities–a necessity if he is to win the presidency–it is clear that he is especially attractive to Blacks, just as was Malcolm X.

I had to wonder to myself, if Malcolm X had come on the scene today and wanted political power, wouldn’t he also try to broaden his message in just such a way so he’d be electable?Now, maybe this doesn’t sound like a fair comparison to you. But, remember, I’m not suggesting that Malcolm X and Obama have the same message. I’m just saying that to me they seem to have a similar appearance and manner.

After all, if a politician came on the scene who was a ringer for Stalin, no one would notice, right? People wouldn’t think that just because he looks like and talks like Stalin that in some sort of synchronous way that this person shares some of Stalin’s murderous ideas, would they?

At any rate, like Malcolm, Obama seems to be able to motivate Blacks. And, that’s a good thing. Right? Anyone who could be against that must be a racist. Right again?

In South Carolina, Obama won due to a massive turn out of Blacks. In fact, more than 81% of the Black voters in South Carolina voted for Obama. They apparently turned out in record numbers just to vote for their fellow Black, because of the color of his skin, and defeat pro-Black, liberal, White Hillary Clinton. Malcolm X probably would have received a similar total.Peculiarly, even as they repeated this 81% figure, some liberal White pundits were saying that Obama’s win indicates that we have moved beyond race. Even Ted Kennedy has said that Obama “transcends race.”Huh?

I don’t get it. If most of the people of one race vote for a person of the same race because of his race, is that not voting for race? Is that what moving beyond race means in this nutty Dark Age in which we live?

Even a large number of the 24% of Whites who voted for Obama in South Carolina may have done so not because they are color blind–as the pundits want you to believe–but precisely because they do see color and they, like Black, also voted for Obama because of the color of his skin.

How can we come to this conclusion? Well, the demographic of White voters that gave the most votes to Obama was the group between 18-29 years old (49% of this demographic voted for him). Frankly, that looks to me to be a result of the blending propaganda that, like most propaganda, is most effective when it is started with young children when their minds are most vulnerable and before they can reason for themselves–say about 30 years ago in earnest.

Propaganda–call it brainwashing–often has mixed results in adults, but when young children are subjected to it, it often becomes fixed for life and comes under the heading of conditioning. Shaking such conditioning is as difficult for humans as it is for rats in a Skinner box. The brain is simply hardwired to believe certain things and to reject anything that is counter to those implanted beliefs.

My guess is that these days you’d find this same demographic would tell you that smoking is bad, but if you went back 60 years or so, they’d tell you it was a fine thing to do. It just depends on which ideas are planted in their brains. We’re all subject to conditioning, folks. Sometimes it’s for our good and sometimes it’s not. But in both cases we are being influenced by others who are trying to get us to have certain mind sets and behaviors.

The smoking is bad, or good, type of propaganda, when given a blender twist, puts messages into the subconscious minds of easily suggestible people that Whites are evil and that they must overcome their evil by voting for Blacks and by treating them better than Whites.And, what about Obama’s wins in Iowa and New Hampshire where older Whites voted for him in large numbers? Does that show we’ve moved beyond race and counter what I wrote above? Not at all. Pundits are quick to point out that these two states are both overwhelmingly White. Then, based on this, the pundits leap to the conclusion that race had nothing to do with the fact that Obama won.

Again, this is nonsense. The correct conclusion is that because there are so few Blacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, that most of the Whites there have little actual experience to counteract the conditioning. Yes, even older people are subject to conditioning. Generally, it’s not as strong as in those who received if from infancy, but it’s still a factor.

The problem for Obama may be that the conditioning hasn’t taken in all people. Millions of Whites were born before the massive brainwashing began and others aren’t as susceptible to it. The implanted ideas didn’t take. These Whites across the U.S., who look at the statistics of South Carolina, may start believing en masse that Obama really is just a Black candidate for Blacks and other non-Whites and for brainwashed White self-haters. They might start wondering what will happen to them and their families if Obama gets the presidency.

Perhaps, they may think, he is not going to really be a president for all the people after all.And, it probably has not been missed by many Whites who are against amnesty for illegal aliens that Obama’s supporters use the same chant used by illegal aliens when they march demanding amnesty and open borders: “Yes we can!”

Could it be that the Obama movement is inherently anti-White? “Yes we can. Yes we can. Si se puede. Si se puede.” What are we to make of that chant?Would some folks be considered paranoid if, upon hearing that chant, they thought they were hearing an echo in their minds from the darkest lands, including Haiti, where Whites were slaughtered in genocidal blood baths because of the color of their skin? Might some not think they hear, in the darkest hours of the night, a drum beat sound, a cadence and a chant once heard from the Mau Maus: “Kill the Whites, Kill the Whites, Kill the Whites.”Of course “Kill the Whites” aren’t the words of the present chant. No one would suggest that. That does sound paranoid. But, when you hear people saying that Blacks and Hispanics need to join forces, just exactly who are they joining forces against? Even in the most paranoid fantasies, there is often a touch of reality.

Maybe, the hidden meaning of the chant is somewhat less harsh and isn’t “Kill the Whites,” but: “Replace the Whites.”

So, and we’re still speaking of appearances and subconscious cues, one wonders whether or not millions of Whites will also have noticed, as I have, that Obama looks like and talks like Malcolm X and whether or not they’ll subconsciously put that together, rightly or wrongly, with the fact that Blacks appear to be voting for Obama because he is Black. And, if they do think along these lines, will they then start wondering if an Obama presidency might be bad for them and their families?

Will some also fear that Obama will fill all the top positions in the U.S. government with people similar to those on the O.J. jury who acquitted O.J. of murder? Will they recall that most Blacks believe O.J. was innocent while most Whites believe he was guilty? And, if they do recall this, will they wonder what this means for an Obama presidency, if anything?

And, some may wonder about Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the minister of Trinity United Church of Christ, whose church publication praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, you may remember, has called Whites “blue-eyed devils.”Of course, Whites, who have been conditioned to be pro-anything-but-white, will offer various rationalizations for the anti-White connections. That’s how conditioning works in humans. It’s a little like schizophrenia. The schizophrenic will often offer plausible sounding reasons for, say, wearing a tin foil hat and believing that there are space aliens in toilets.

Schizophrenics are often very intelligent and they can even convince many others that there really are space aliens in toilets and that tin foil hats will protect people. No doubt, our political schizophrenics will convince many that anti-White statements and Blacks voting for a Black because he is Black don’t mean what they appear to mean.

As we move toward more primaries, one wonders (but, we really know the answer) if those supporting Obama will try to claim some noble high ground and try to brow beat Whites into voting for Obama with subtle cries that they are racist if they don’t; when the statistics clearly show that Blacks are voting for Obama precisely because he is of their same race and that this, by definition, is the real racism?

One has to feel a little sympathy for the Clintons in all of this. They must feel a little like they’re caught in a real life version of that old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto when the two are surrounded by Indians. When the Lone Ranger says “We have to defeat the Indians,” Tonto replies, “What to you mean “we” pale face?”

Many readers of my columns may recall that I once wrote a column in which I called Bill Clinton our first Black president, and that after that column was published, a Black writer called him the same thing and then there was massive publicity about her doing so.

I bring this up because Hillary Clinton, by extension, was the first Black First Lady and her work for Blacks went way back before Obama was ever in politics. But, as she is learning this year, the content of her character doesn’t outweigh the color of her skin in the Black and other non-White communities or among many White liberals.

Obama is taking the Black and the Hispanic vote and he has done nothing to get it except being born non-White. But, that’s not racism, right?"

Take heart Obamaholics, this guy doesn't seem too bright to me. The problem is that a lot of not too bright people will be voting this year.

wow...what an asinine piece of reading...what is the guy talking about?...so now obama looks like malcolm x?...i think i have heard it all...

...'But, when you hear people saying that Blacks and Hispanics need to join forces, just exactly who are they joining forces against?'...are you seriously asking this question?...

...someone in lilly white america is getting scared and starting the counter-attack...uh, should i worry about all the white people who are obviously voting for white candidates based on race?...in fact, doesn't mccain remind you of, hitler?...give me a break...*grabs a bowl of popcorn and a cup of green tea, freshly brewed to watch the fuckery unfold*...

At this moment "Glory" is on T.V. man I'm Pissed. Oreilly had his PUNK go out and interview the veterans. Man what a punk ass bitch. (I been reading you too much.) He said they were just alcoholics and junkies. There is no homelessness problem. It has nothing to do with the economy.then the ambush punk , Jesse ask them how did you find out about this ? Now the brothers were smart they weren't going to say it was on T.V. Someone told them . If you are homeless you don't have a fuckin T.V. I thought about all the wars Oreilly fought in. Think about this ,each veteran at the lowest took one life. Now at the maximum how many? The Republiklan party should be pissed at this. I can't even relax right now ,because those traiters the republicans hate NIGGERS more than they love America.

“In South Carolina, Obama won due to a massive turn out of Blacks. In fact, more than 81% of the Black voters in South Carolina voted for Obama. They apparently turned out in record numbers just to vote for their fellow Black, because of the color of his skin, and defeat pro-Black, liberal, White Hillary Clinton. Malcolm X probably would have received a similar total.Peculiarly, even as they repeated this 81% figure, some liberal White pundits were saying that Obama’s win indicates that we have moved beyond race. Even Ted Kennedy has said that Obama “transcends race.”Huh?”

I will admit that I read little more than half of this piece (of shit) before I found something more meaningful to do…like contemplate the existence of lint. But then it occurred to me that this fool highlighted the racist narrative from which the Clintons have been pulling; he personifies the intended result of their strategy in South Carolina. Bill Clinton would not shut up about identity politics in South Carolina and how Black people would invariably vote b/c it is good old racist strategy. In so doing,he simultaneously "ghetto-izes" Obama's candidacy (Black candidate for Black people) and cultivates a backlash among white voters to kill the Black candidate on Super Tuesday. This fool is particularly dull witted so he says it out loud, but lots of whites are thinking it. The Clintons count on it and sought to capitalize on it to defeat Obama. I wish someone would line up this parade of house negroes they’ve assembled to stump for Hillary and explain what their “friends” really say about them when they are away polishing the silver and outback churning butter.

~In his column this week, George F. Will discusses Barack Obama as Will sees him, and as black writer Shelby Steele sees him in Steele's new book "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win."

If I understand the discussion correctly, it appears that Steele argues that despite being half-white and half-black (more about this presently) and being raised by a white mother with white standards in a middle class environment, that Obama, instead of facing life as an aracial, has taken his life experience out of account and has gone to the dark side of things in that he is trying to fit into the world as a black man being held down by a racist white society.

Will, on the other hand, apparently believes that Obama doesn't really see himself as a black man, and has transcended race. If I were to put this in my own words, I'd say that Will believes that Obama sees himself as an aracial Tan Everyman....http://www.newnation.org/Millard/Our-Identity.html

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the latest big-name endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, lending his gravitas in the financial world to a presidential candidate whose biggest hurdle is to convince voters he is experienced enough to be president.

"After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance," Mr. Volcker said in a statement today.

"However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach."

Frankly, I tried to read through the whole thing, but it was so full of holes, you could fall right through this essay. At some point in the beginning he almost made sense, then the second paragraph came and he lost me. Thanks for posting these people's nonsense, FN. You don't want people saying you don't post both sides of an issue ... no matter how nonsensical the other side is.

I am not surprised that someone who this person's intelligence (or lack thereof) would write such piece, but at least you know what is on his or her mind. Alec Baldwin posted a blog piece on the Huffington Post a couple of days ago where a writer from a small town in Long Island, NY where Baldwin grew up. He posted the article which was obviously racially charged. Some people responded to the blog by asking Baldwin why even reprint such an article, and his response such as it is worthwhile to vote, attend school, or learn how to read a book, exposing racism is also a worthwhile pursuit.

I do not think there is anything wrong with Field or Alec exposing the mindset of people who continually believe it is right to hate someone because of her or his race, sexual gender or orientation, and religious beliefs. Human beings have a tendency to identify with a group or tribe, and it is the group or tribe's goal is to become superior against the others. In a sense, this so primal and I wonder sometimes if we as a society are devolving than evolving. Unfortunately, racism will be that dividing force and people need to wake up to reality we can not or will not survive as a nation. Racism does not benefit anyone, and really pitiful aspect of it. Thank you for the post Field, I think it is very important that people should read the post.

The world’s most ardent racists are often those who have the ability to articulate their deranged views in what they consider logical, common sense approaches. "Do all black people look alike no!...but hmmm, with horned rim glasses he does look a little like malcome...sounds like him too".

Most racist, like David Duke, and Tom Metzger in California know and understand that they only need to sow seeds of doubt to be effective, and appeal to whites fears of increased marginalization and disenfranchisement.

These folks are not the hood wearing, bald headed, confederate flag flying extremist you see tattooed on your television. As we all know that brand of racism has little or no appeal, and is no longer acceptable to the majority of whites. But they are just as dangerous, and just as fanatical in there views.

It would be very foolish to discount this person as some sort of conservative wing nut…This man, and people out there like him are seriously dangerous.

"It would be very foolish to discount this person as some sort of conservative wing nut…This man, and people out there like him are seriously dangerous.

Don't look now, but the entire conservative movement is an authoritarian phenomenon. And every last one of you reading this knows that it certainly appears to be dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy.

Scratch a conservative and you will find a white man, damn near by definition.

He will hate hate HATE Hitlery KKKlintoon... and rail against criminal drug dealers and welfare queens and the "homasekshul" agenda and feminazis and most of all nowadays about how "them Mooslums is a gonna kill us all if'n we don' kill them first."

Mark my words-- if Barack gets the Dem nomination, conservatives will refer to him as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" almost exclusively. (sometimes they'll just call him "Hussein Obama.") We'll get to hear about his "madrassa education," and his secret plan to bring on a Caliphate in A-merry-ca.

They're dangerous because they are conservatives. And they are particularly dangerous to us.

May dreams of Nat Turner and Denmark Vessey and cold steel confound their sleep.

I'm a bit surprised at the reactions to this piece of drivel. What do you expect from a site like http://www.newnation.org/? It is classical US hate propaganda. The big worry, of course, is that such sentiments are real enough that they might make a difference in this race...

OT: Looks like Bill Clinton is going on an "apology tour" of black churches in LA accompanied by Congresswoman Maxine Waters. I guess CA is more in play that we thought. More at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/11949/49964/230/448269

Field, you're right to expose this stuff. Because to the Repugs, Barack & Hillary are both extremely dangerous. & the smears always start this way (with all due respect to Malcolm, who understood this perfectly), down in the cesspool where facts & rational thought mean nothing.

I tried to finish the piece, but my kept wandering. My tv is turned to tv land, and the Andy Griffith Show is one; and, I gotta tell you, I found Aunt Bee's hair style more interesting than this article.

This artice is not just racist and sexist, it's extremely poorly written. Nothing hangs together. The only thing you can say is that he's talking about black folks and the Clintons and making no sense at all.

But you are right, field. Right wing Republican zealots, Clinton haters (of which there are many) and Hitler-loving racists will, like snakes crawling out from under rocks, come on the scene and write all kinds of crap to keep either a Clinton or Obama from becoming elected.

Note to Obama: Don't drink too much of your own kool Aid. There and still blue and red states, and there are white racists in both of them.

Good looking out with brotha Carter Go. woodson on the sidebar. When I joined the Nation of Islam (The "Black Muslims"), the organization to which Malcolm X belonged, I was given two books. The first was a book called-- I believe-- "How to Eat to Live" by Honorable Elijah Muhammad. The second was "The Miseducation of the Negro" by Carter G. Woodson, a book that's as relevant today as it was when I received it over 30 years ago.

Remember Clinton could not campaign for Gore in 2000, because he was coming off an impeachment scandal, that was an election Gore could have won if he was not tainted by Clinton.

Meanwhile

Obama passes Hillary in California Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby

http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/2008candidates

Obama needs to keep the states he got and if he can win Cali and Mass that is a crippling blow to Hillary. He would get so much press from breaking expectations and so much more party support...and then he will likely get Maryland, VA, and DC a week later...

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy that wrote this piece came off a glue snithing and oxycotton binge. I also wouldn't be surprised if repugs used this similar type of thinking in the general election.

Follow the The Field Negro via e-mail.

TWEET ME

DISCLAIMER

***The views expressed on this site are the field's and the field's alone. They do not reflect the views of his employer, or any professional or legal organization with which he is affiliated.***

This is a commercial free blog.

Money is nice, but being able to speak my mind is better.

"Real talk: Daniel Rubin has a great little piece up wherein he chats with The Field Negro, the Philly-based blogger who sharply ponders all things black on a daily basis. (Seriously, if you’ve never checked in with TFN, you should: Its author, Wayne Bennett, is a fantastic read who can cut through bullshit like a hot knife through butter, which is a far grosser analogy than I wanted to make, but there you have it.)" ~Philebrity~

"..While most of what he writes is tongue-in-cheek, his space is a safe house for candid discussions about race, especially in the comments section, where people of all colors meet."~~Daniel Rubin, "The Philadelphia Inquirer"~~

"To white people, Bennett's musings are like kitchen-table talk from a kitchen they may otherwise never set foot in. To African Americans, he is part of a growing army of black Internet amateurs who have taken up the work once reserved for ministers and professional activists: the work of setting a black agenda, shaping black opinion and calling attention to the state of the nation's racial affairs."

~~Richard Fausset, "L.A. Times"~~~

"That's why I love the blog "Field Negro" so much. Field, as he's known to his fans, has the sense of reality that it takes to call out the (CowPuckey) of blame beating by those who are in positions of power and their lackeys. Because of his handle and his unabashed way of writing about racial issues, Field is often cited as a "Black blogger." What he is, however, is a first-class detector of blame deflection and an excellent student of history. If you want to write about the past and future of repression there's really no other perspective to take - which is why everyone should read Field."

"Half a century after Little Rock, the Montgomery bus boycott and the tumultuous dawn of the modern civil rights era, the new face of the movement is Facebook, MySpace and some 150 black blogs united in an Internet alliance they call theAfroSpear.

Older, familiar leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, are under challenge by a younger generation of bloggers known by such provocative screen names as Field Negro, thefreeslaveand African American Political Pundit. And many of the newest struggles are being waged online."~Howard Witt-The Chicago Tribune~

"I had no idea, for example, of the extent of the African-American blogging world out there and its collective powers of dissemination.But now, after reading thousands of anguished, thoughtful comments posted on these blogs reflecting on issues of persistent racial discrimination in the nation's schools and courtrooms, what's clear to me is that there's a new, "virtual" civil rights movement out there on the Internet that can reach more people in a few hours than all the protest marches, sit-ins and boycotts of the 1950s and 60s put together." ~Chicago Tribune Reporter, Howard Witt~